I am having issues with the online system, and therefore write to strongly object any development on site S/CBC-A.

Notably, the site proposed is at present wholly within the Cambridge green belt and outside of the development framework. Any development here would substantially weaken the divide between the city and rural landscapes creating an urban space that goes right to the Granham's Rd area creating a stark divide rather than the current blending achieved. It is clear that there are other less impactful and non-green belt options available for expansion of the Biomedical Campus nearer to the Cambridge south station site. Other brownfield options are available that do not impact on the green belt in the same way.

Notably, the proposed site comes significantly close to the nature reserve and would also impact wildlife and the biodiversity at this previous Site of Special Scientific Interest. The proposed development right up to this area may detrimentally impact on the aim of re-creating the conditions favourable for a possible re-introduction of the rare species previously lost. It occurs to me that we should be seeking to expand the nature reserve, creating a place of recreational utility for the wellbeing of people and nature as a whole, rather than developing right up to the reserve.

Indeed, as I understand it, the development proposed is largely laboratory and office facilities with some residential capacity and will heavily intrude on the character of the area, while adding additional traffic. Despite the station and cycling paths, which are not fully developed, we know many drive into the CBC and continue to do so as housing process preclude many from buying adjacent properties. The area is already heavily congested and cycling fatalities have evidenced a significant need to overhaul the infrastructure before further pressure is added. The congestion of the additional traffic through the proposed developments is likely to have significant environmental impacts and the proximity to the chalk conduit site cannot being overlooked. The environmental impacts will be substantial.

Assessments published of the area also highlight the flood risk and it is unclear whether mitigation will be able too offset the elevated risk to residents already on the site like those at Ninewells. Building on the fields will be connected to greater surface water and assessments suggest significant impacts and risks.

With the existing biomedical site not yet fully utilised and it unclear how work and life balances (including working from home) will play out in the post-COVID world, it appears the risks would outweigh the benefits in terms of this site proposal at the current time. Much greater consideration of the spill over effects of further development on wildlife and the wider community are needed. I therefore strongly oppose the proposal.